Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Wow. That is so not what happened. It was heliocentrism (also, Galileo kind of went looking for trouble, which I respect, but you can't say he didn't know what he was doing). Aristotle laid out three arguments against the flat earth hypothesis - disappearing stars as you travel south, ships disappearing from the hull up as they approach the horizon and, most damningly, the fact that the Earth's shadow on the moon is always perfectly curved. Then some time later Eratosthenes not only figured out that it's round, he measured its circumference to an impressive level of accuracy. Seriously, educated people have known since then that it's round. People did not laugh at Columbus for thinking the world was round, they laughed at him for thinking it was shaped like a pear and about 2/3 its actual size. And they were right to laugh at him.
I could say I'm astonished, but that wouldn't really come close. I saw this particular piece of history with a certains sense of dizziness. We knew the world was round in the, Third, century BC? I am impressed. That's only about nineteen hundred years away from my acquired information. I'm coming to the conclusion, I didn't have that great of an education. It forces me to reevaluate from an entirely new paradigm, the accuracy, or lack thereof of all the eminently believable facts, I've learned before. How is it possible, within the framework of a university education, to get something so obviously wrong? Or maybe I didn't learn of it at school. Maybe I read it in a book, or picked it up in conversation, regardless, I did do some minimal research on the subject, just to get my facts straight, for something I wrote. There was no indication it was fallacious. The year, 297 BC, is significantly more impressive than 1600 AD. What happenned between then and 1600 AD? I feel the metal gears inside my head, shifting to ecompass this new knowledge.
Why on earth, would the Roman Catholics. prosecute Gallileo for heresy, if he's only confirming what was already known? Was it lost information? Tell me more about this story. I can add it to my post on Greece.
Quote:
Literally everyone. Culturally we punch way above our weight, demographic-wise. I just wish I was dumb enough to be proud of that fact. Or at least ignorant enough not to realise it's entirely the result of having been conquered by the English.
I think the irish are charming people. I was merely giving you a hard time, which you've returned with interest. I can understand your delimma. Here in the US, every third song is of Irish origin. It's because of the ethereal esthetic quality, and sing-song accent. It's hard to resist it's soothing, lullaby lilt. And then there's U2! Irish films have been big recently too, mostly about the conflict. But I don't think you really care whether their exportation profits are up. How does the ancient enmity, between Ireland and England effect your life? Does it bother you personally that England conquered Ireland? Do you feel conquered? I imagine it's the most magical and beautiful place on earth. Even commercials catch my eye and I can't look away.
Quote:
Who else but mostly every other culture ever? I mean what do you think Robin Hood was, a law-abiding citizen? And he never existed either... Seriously, though, if you do indeed find etymology interesting, I recommend you look into the history of the word 'villain' and compare and contrast with the history of the word 'cowboy'. There's very little new under the sun.
I find the cowboy west distasteful. It isn't a pleasant place to fantasize about. Robinhood was an aristocratic criminal, more cultured and beneficient in concept and practice, with empathetic and idealistic proclivities. (who might have existed)Not some dirty saloon-keeper, swilling rot-gut and shooting wild horses. There isn't one thing about the west I find the least bit desirable.. In fact, it's deplorable. In conditions, in standards, in every imaginable manner..
Quote:
Saloon girls and harlots are indeed my stock in trade, naturally. They don't mind at all when I contradict their misperceptions.
I'll never admit it in public, but truth be told, I simply adore being corrected, when I must, actually concede, I'm wrong. There are few things more intrigueing than, freshly acquired information. I's the gestalt aspect. The sudden synthesis and practical compounding of all previous knowledge into one concomitant, synergistic, whole. The Aha, or Eureka, syndrome. But certain implications could be discomfiting. Please correct this misrepresentation at your earliest convienance.